The invaluable John Schwenkler has issued a y'all come for a reading group on the new encyclical. I have not time to join it myself, but if you are interested, it seems like a worthy way to spend some quality time with B16's thought.
And with that, I'm outta here. See you Monday!
Friday, July 10, 2009
She desecrates the Eucharist...
...because she cares so much about Jesus. It's not about the itch for power or anything.
I love Benedict XVI
To the President who graces other heads of state with recordings of himself, the Pope gives a gift in return: a copy of the Church's document on bioethics and human dignity. I hope Michael Novak isn't too disappointed that the Holy Father is continuing to spout that naive Justice and Peace crap about charity instead of just having the Swiss Guard run him through with pikes and defeat the evil of abortion the neocon way.
I do have to give Obama credit for giving Benedict a nice gift. He even was cognizant of the fact that it's the Year of the Priest, which there is no particular reason he should know (recall that other Presidents have cluelessly presented themselves for communion). And he pulled the whole thing off without once suggesting the Benedict's encyclical was a "platypus" or by insulting the Holy Father's intellectual integrity by claiming that Benedict would deliberately promulgate teachings he does not believe (i.e. "lie") merely in order to keep peace in the curial household.
I do have to give Obama credit for giving Benedict a nice gift. He even was cognizant of the fact that it's the Year of the Priest, which there is no particular reason he should know (recall that other Presidents have cluelessly presented themselves for communion). And he pulled the whole thing off without once suggesting the Benedict's encyclical was a "platypus" or by insulting the Holy Father's intellectual integrity by claiming that Benedict would deliberately promulgate teachings he does not believe (i.e. "lie") merely in order to keep peace in the curial household.
I'll be on Catholic Answers Live today at 3:00 PM PDT.
We'll be talking about Mary, Mother of the Son - Volume 2: First Guardian of the Faith.
You can stream it here.
By the way, for those wondering if I'm going to take up James White's latest demand for a debate, my reply is, "Why should I take the trouble to argue with James about my book when he did not take the trouble to read it before 'refuting' it?" If you read his 'refutation' what is perfectly obvious is this:
James began by opening the book, not to the beginninng, but to the Index. Why? To look for his name. That was Priority Numero Uno. Failing to find himself mentioned by name, does he then begin, you know, reading the book?
No. he then pores over the trilogy searching the footnotes till he finds the one mention of his name in a single footnote (Volume I, page 112, footnote 6, for those of you to whom this is as intensely important as it is to James White). I am not making this up nor "reading between the lines" of his 'refutation', by the way. This is what he himself makes perfectly clear. His absolute first priority was to make sure he found his own name in the text and he makes it quite clear that he resents not finding it. Don't we always approach a book this way? Of course we do. Nothing odd here.
White then read the couple of pages surrounding that footnote (judging from his 'review' I'd say pp 108-115 or so), and set about studiously avoiding facing the fact that he was, 'ow you say?, wrong when he claimed that in the early fathers, the woman of Revelation is "always" the Church, not Mary. He then regurgitated a few talking points he knows how to parrot ("I know Greek!" and "It's okay when the New Testament writers make use of the senses of Scripture but I don't allow Catholics or the Church Fathers to do it.") and then issued the standard "challenge". As to the rest of the trilogy, he gives not the slightest bit of evidence that he has so much as glanced at it.
This is why I find so much of the testosterone-driven apologetics subculture so tiresome. No thanks, dude. Go be Pope for your fanboys, write a couple more screeds about the book, declare victory, post some more modest icons of yourself in testament to your towering humility:
...and just leave me out of it. I figure the books can speak for themselves. I'll wait for a critique from a Protestant who is not, a priori, committed to the proposition that Catholics are not Christian.
False Prophets Abound in Turbulent Times
Some of them are non-Christian, and appeal to people who are seeking any signs but the sign of the prophet Jonah.
Some of them come from Christians who, cut off from the Magisterium, have invented their own Magisterium compounded of End Times theories, guilty feelings about the Holocaust, and cranky theories about the State of Israel as a fulfilment of "biblical prophecy" that have no standing whatever in the Tradition, but are *highly* amenable to certain political groups:
One can support the state of Israel to one's heart's content as a secular political theory. I do. However, the moment you start claiming to be able to divine the hand of God and the fulfillment of prophecy in the secular state of Israel is the moment you are beginning to elevate a mere human tradition to the level of Sacred Tradition. You can hold the notion that Israel is the fulfillment of prophecy as a private (albeit dangerous and completely unsubstantiated) opinion just as (if it comes to it) you can have a private opinion that crop circles forecast the Second Coming.
But groups like Friends of Israel don't treat it as a private opinion. They treat it as obvious, revealed by God Almighty, and as a basis for broad political action that can (and has) gotten quite a number of people killed.
Of course, folks like this don't have access to the Magisterium and so often are acting in good faith on the basis of bad information. They have an excuse. We Catholics do not. If we encourage people to elevate mere human opinion to the level of Sacred Tradition, we shall be held accountable for it. No Catholic in his five wits would say that some loopy New Age Catholic should go about trumpeting that Mayan crop circles were fulfilments of biblical prophecy and expecting that every Catholic believe this or risk the wrath of God. But lots of Catholics have no problem with the not-a-few in our ranks who routinely buy into Protestant theories about Israel as the fulfilment of biblical prophecy. Of the two crank theories, only one stands a decent chance of sparking a war that will kill millions, and it ain't the crop circles.
Some of them come from Christians who, cut off from the Magisterium, have invented their own Magisterium compounded of End Times theories, guilty feelings about the Holocaust, and cranky theories about the State of Israel as a fulfilment of "biblical prophecy" that have no standing whatever in the Tradition, but are *highly* amenable to certain political groups:
Prophetic Insights in Turbulent Times - What does it mean for Americans?
Jonathan Schanzer, former U.S. White House Counterterrorism Analyst to Speak at The Friends of Israel Prophecy Conference at Winona Lake, Indiana July 26 -31
Bellmawr, NJ - The Friends of Israel is holding their 12th annual Prophecy Conference at the Rodeheaver Auditorium at Grace College in Winona Lake, Indiana July 26 - 31, 2009.
The Friends of Israel's Executive Director, Bill Sutter, states, "We know that Americans are anxious about world events that are taking place and what that means for us here at home, as well as for our brothers and sisters around the globe. We are very pleased that Jonathan Schanzer will be joining us for our 'Honor Israel Night' on Tuesday, July 28, at 6:30 p.m."
Prophetic insights will be dissected and related to biblical accounts to discover how the prophecies relate to current U.S. and world events.
Experts on biblical prophecy will be speaking including Bill Sutter, Executive Director; Jim Showers, Vice President; David Levy, Director of International Ministries; Steve Herzig, Director of North American Ministries among others from The Friends of Israel. Pastor Meno Kalisher from the Jerusalem Assembly will be providing updates from Israel.
There is a children's program during all sessions and the conference is free. For more details call The Friends of Israel at 1-800-257-7843, and ask for Lisa Grosso at extension 139 between 8:30a.m. and 4:30 p.m. EDT, or visit the Web site at www.foi.org.
One can support the state of Israel to one's heart's content as a secular political theory. I do. However, the moment you start claiming to be able to divine the hand of God and the fulfillment of prophecy in the secular state of Israel is the moment you are beginning to elevate a mere human tradition to the level of Sacred Tradition. You can hold the notion that Israel is the fulfillment of prophecy as a private (albeit dangerous and completely unsubstantiated) opinion just as (if it comes to it) you can have a private opinion that crop circles forecast the Second Coming.
But groups like Friends of Israel don't treat it as a private opinion. They treat it as obvious, revealed by God Almighty, and as a basis for broad political action that can (and has) gotten quite a number of people killed.
Of course, folks like this don't have access to the Magisterium and so often are acting in good faith on the basis of bad information. They have an excuse. We Catholics do not. If we encourage people to elevate mere human opinion to the level of Sacred Tradition, we shall be held accountable for it. No Catholic in his five wits would say that some loopy New Age Catholic should go about trumpeting that Mayan crop circles were fulfilments of biblical prophecy and expecting that every Catholic believe this or risk the wrath of God. But lots of Catholics have no problem with the not-a-few in our ranks who routinely buy into Protestant theories about Israel as the fulfilment of biblical prophecy. Of the two crank theories, only one stands a decent chance of sparking a war that will kill millions, and it ain't the crop circles.
Thanks, Melbourne Archdiocese!
...for the very positive review of Mary, Mother of the Son! (Click on the "Book Review" thingie in the box on the lower left, then double click on the page to zoom in.)
And, by the way, that's extremely cool software with the page-turning special effects. Nicely done.
And, by the way, that's extremely cool software with the page-turning special effects. Nicely done.
Pretty Much Everything I've Tried to Say
The invaluable John Schwenkler mines a little quote from Radley Balko that neatly summarizes everything I think about the Palin kerfuffles:
The Nancy Kerrigan Principle ("Victimhood does not automatically confer perfection") applies to politicians too.
I think the obvious and palpable hatred of Palin (and of her fertility and *especially* of her fertility in the case of Trig) is a matter of obvious (and ongoing) record. Despite some delusional (not to say dishonest) attempts to deny the bleedin' obvious, the fact is the universe of leftist discourse was positively *larded* with obscene contempt for Trig Palin. And, in the case of Andrew Sullivan, this is alloyed with a downright crazy obsessive hatred of Palin at a personal level to the degree that he *still* can't give up his weird obsession with Trig Trutherism. In no other election in American history have partisans felt so free and at home among their own to kick back and let fly with rhetoric like:
What would have spelled instant and absolutely justifiable political death for, say, a Nixon supporter in 1960 ("Hey! Let's tell jokes about JFK's retarded sister!") was not exceptional for the Palin-haters. This was common and acceptable among the nutroots. And that's because of the broad acceptance of a tacit eugenics culture in these United States. For the population planner types, Trig was everything they loathed most.
So it's perfectly understandable that what remains of the decent people in our culture would be repelled by such stuff and want to see a dramatic denouement in which such repugnant creeps are definitively defeated, the Death Star they live on destroyed (with a couple of those cool Saturn ring blast waves they put in the movies these days) and a family that has chosen life exalted to some high office on a wave of popular support that assures us America can be turned back from embracing the culture of death.
But this is not the movies and Sarah Palin, honest-to-goodness victim though she is, does not appear to have been anything like ready for the office to which she aspired. That's not to say the clown who *did* get the job is competent for it. It's just to say that, well, the Nancy Kerrigan principle applies to politicians too. I don't think she was ready to be thrust into the spotlight the way she was (a fault for which I ultimately hold McCain responsible since he seems not to have given her much thought). I hope she does well wherever she winds up, but I think the people who are imagining she is some political genius position for 2012 are kidding themselves.
It is possible that Sarah Palin was both unfairly mistreated and personally attacked by the media and many on the left, and that her family was rather ruthlessly and mercilessly run through the ringer . . . and that she’s a not particularly bright, not particularly curious, once libertarian-leaning governor who sadly devolved into a predictable, buzzword spouting culture warrior when she was prematurely picked for national office by John McCain.
The Nancy Kerrigan Principle ("Victimhood does not automatically confer perfection") applies to politicians too.
I think the obvious and palpable hatred of Palin (and of her fertility and *especially* of her fertility in the case of Trig) is a matter of obvious (and ongoing) record. Despite some delusional (not to say dishonest) attempts to deny the bleedin' obvious, the fact is the universe of leftist discourse was positively *larded* with obscene contempt for Trig Palin. And, in the case of Andrew Sullivan, this is alloyed with a downright crazy obsessive hatred of Palin at a personal level to the degree that he *still* can't give up his weird obsession with Trig Trutherism. In no other election in American history have partisans felt so free and at home among their own to kick back and let fly with rhetoric like:
That’s right. Palin is about to embark on a career of causing babies to be born retarded. Down Syndrome, Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, crack addiction, or a good old-fashioned kick to the pregnant tummy, it doesn’t matter to Palin. She wants the world to have more Trigs.
Other than fueling a greater need for social services, think how this could benefit Palin politically. She already tests well with the Retarded demographic, and also the Retarded Sympathizer demographic.
Imagine the world Palin is trying to create, in which instead of a superior race, Palin breeds a stupider race. 20 years from now, she’ll only be in her late 60s. She’ll be able to run for President on the Retard ticket . . . no doubt with full support of Retardeds, Retarded Sympathizers, and the Politically-Correct.
Next time around, when Palin is told “Your platform is completely retarded”, she will be able to say, “You betcha! That’s just what my constituents want!”
What would have spelled instant and absolutely justifiable political death for, say, a Nixon supporter in 1960 ("Hey! Let's tell jokes about JFK's retarded sister!") was not exceptional for the Palin-haters. This was common and acceptable among the nutroots. And that's because of the broad acceptance of a tacit eugenics culture in these United States. For the population planner types, Trig was everything they loathed most.
So it's perfectly understandable that what remains of the decent people in our culture would be repelled by such stuff and want to see a dramatic denouement in which such repugnant creeps are definitively defeated, the Death Star they live on destroyed (with a couple of those cool Saturn ring blast waves they put in the movies these days) and a family that has chosen life exalted to some high office on a wave of popular support that assures us America can be turned back from embracing the culture of death.
But this is not the movies and Sarah Palin, honest-to-goodness victim though she is, does not appear to have been anything like ready for the office to which she aspired. That's not to say the clown who *did* get the job is competent for it. It's just to say that, well, the Nancy Kerrigan principle applies to politicians too. I don't think she was ready to be thrust into the spotlight the way she was (a fault for which I ultimately hold McCain responsible since he seems not to have given her much thought). I hope she does well wherever she winds up, but I think the people who are imagining she is some political genius position for 2012 are kidding themselves.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Two More Glowing Reviews for Mary, Mother of the Son
Albert McIlhenny finishes the trilogy and concludes, "This volume, and the series as a whole, seems destined to be the standard apologetics work on Catholic Marian beliefs for years to come."
And, in his own unique way, James White, having glanced briefly at it, raves that it is a "Desperate Defense of Marian Mythology". That's as handsome a compliment as I could have asked for!
What? You haven't gotten your (signed) copy yet? You poor thing! Let me help you remedy that sad lack in your life! You can order it by clicking on the beautiful covers below:
And, in his own unique way, James White, having glanced briefly at it, raves that it is a "Desperate Defense of Marian Mythology". That's as handsome a compliment as I could have asked for!
What? You haven't gotten your (signed) copy yet? You poor thing! Let me help you remedy that sad lack in your life! You can order it by clicking on the beautiful covers below:
What Does This Even Mean?
Michael Novak speaks in tongues:
????
So... what? The Pope is too focused on caritas and not enough on buying Novak's pleas for pre-emptive war to bring about an end to evil? The Pope is insufficiently reverential of the rousing success that is the Western economic system at present? The Pope talks too much about charity, virtue and justice and not enough about power, domination and war? Or what? What does this mean? Is is just another way of saying the Pope is naive and "gentle" and easily swayed by stupid Peace and Justice types who *really* wrote his encyclical? Hard to say. Parsing this is like grasping smoke. This has to be one of the most content-free remarks about the encyclical that I've seen so far.
The Catholic tradition—even the wise Pope Benedict—still seems to put too much stress upon caritas, virtue, justice, and good intentions, and not nearly enough on methods for defeating human sin in all its devious and persistent forms.
????
So... what? The Pope is too focused on caritas and not enough on buying Novak's pleas for pre-emptive war to bring about an end to evil? The Pope is insufficiently reverential of the rousing success that is the Western economic system at present? The Pope talks too much about charity, virtue and justice and not enough about power, domination and war? Or what? What does this mean? Is is just another way of saying the Pope is naive and "gentle" and easily swayed by stupid Peace and Justice types who *really* wrote his encyclical? Hard to say. Parsing this is like grasping smoke. This has to be one of the most content-free remarks about the encyclical that I've seen so far.
Note to Tom Kreitzberg
Live forever!
I am perpetually astonished at how pundits can *instantly* render sweeping verdicts on papal encyclicals before the ink is even dry. And even more on how they can actually exegete such encyclicals like 19th century German scholars purporting to know, down to the word, which passages are written by the Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly and Deuterocanonical authors.
I'm always reminded of Fr. Benedict Groeschel's favorite biblical scholar, Mrs. Sandoc, the Jewish lady who lived across the street from him when he was a kid in New York. Her son came home, full of the latest scholarship and announced that Israel had crossed the Red Sea at low tide. She replied, in archetypally Jewish New York mother fashion: "You were there?"
I am perpetually astonished at how pundits can *instantly* render sweeping verdicts on papal encyclicals before the ink is even dry. And even more on how they can actually exegete such encyclicals like 19th century German scholars purporting to know, down to the word, which passages are written by the Yahwist, Elohist, Priestly and Deuterocanonical authors.
I'm always reminded of Fr. Benedict Groeschel's favorite biblical scholar, Mrs. Sandoc, the Jewish lady who lived across the street from him when he was a kid in New York. Her son came home, full of the latest scholarship and announced that Israel had crossed the Red Sea at low tide. She replied, in archetypally Jewish New York mother fashion: "You were there?"
This Will Seem Strange to Catholics
but it's waaay funny to us former Evangelicals
The peculiar need to "market" one's church is something that is just not on the radar for Catholic parishes. That's both a blessing and a curse. Catholics are notoriously terrible evangelists, so they do not obsess overmuch about strategizing to be seeker-sensitive and or figuring out how to capitalize on various trendinesses in order to be hip and with it. Catholics wouldn't know how to be "culturally strategic" if their lives depended on it. There's great good in that, since a lot of what passes for Evangelization really is just "marketing" and kowtowing to ephemeral hipness trends. On the other hand, we often feel such a reluctance to inflict our faith on others that you can spend years as a newcomer in a Catholic parish and never talk to the person you sit next to in the pew. Our slowness to evangelize, while making us less obnoxious than some species of Evangelicalism, is not ultimately praiseworthy. We could stand a dose of the Evangelical imperative that is so strong in many Evangelical groups.
HT: The Invaluable Sci Fi Catholic
The peculiar need to "market" one's church is something that is just not on the radar for Catholic parishes. That's both a blessing and a curse. Catholics are notoriously terrible evangelists, so they do not obsess overmuch about strategizing to be seeker-sensitive and or figuring out how to capitalize on various trendinesses in order to be hip and with it. Catholics wouldn't know how to be "culturally strategic" if their lives depended on it. There's great good in that, since a lot of what passes for Evangelization really is just "marketing" and kowtowing to ephemeral hipness trends. On the other hand, we often feel such a reluctance to inflict our faith on others that you can spend years as a newcomer in a Catholic parish and never talk to the person you sit next to in the pew. Our slowness to evangelize, while making us less obnoxious than some species of Evangelicalism, is not ultimately praiseworthy. We could stand a dose of the Evangelical imperative that is so strong in many Evangelical groups.
HT: The Invaluable Sci Fi Catholic
That's rich
Lifesite News, the people who drafted Benedict XVI into their private war on Harry Potter, are upset because people are "some choice pull-quotes" from the new encyclical in order to distort his message.
Just Enough of Her, Way Too Many of Them
In this week's "manufacturing consent" moment, the NY Times conducts an interview with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader and never stops for one second to pause over her open and naked eugenics enthusiasm:
Note how the reporter simply skips the eugenics remark about eliminating undesirables and re-directs the conversation right back to standard pro-choice boilerplate? This, children, is how the MSM works in manufacturing consent to the dominant paradigms of our elites and, of course, our Robed Masters.
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
Q: When you say that reproductive rights need to be straightened out, what do you mean?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.
Note how the reporter simply skips the eugenics remark about eliminating undesirables and re-directs the conversation right back to standard pro-choice boilerplate? This, children, is how the MSM works in manufacturing consent to the dominant paradigms of our elites and, of course, our Robed Masters.
A reader writes:
I am asking you and your readers for prayers. A friend of mine is in imminent danger of turning her back on the religious vocation she embraced some years ago. Please pray fervently for her!
Father, hear our prayer for your daughter, that your will for her be made clear and that she find the grace to follow it through our Lord Jesus. Mother Mary, pray for your daughter and obtain this grace for her.
Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thine intercession was left unaided.
Inspired by this confidence, we fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, our mother; to thee do we come, before thee we stand, sinful and sorrowful. O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not our petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer us as we pray for this woman.
Our Chattering Classes Explain it All For You
"Every major religion’s texts were written at a time when women were regarded as little better than talking cattle."
As I have said before, one of the things contempt does it blind us to the thing we hold in contempt. No effort is made to understand what is we hold in contempt because we imagine that, being contemptible, it is not worth understanding. That may work if something is genuinely contemptible. But if it's not (as for instance, "religion" is not) we wind up making fools of ourselves and doubly so when the religion happens to be the actual revelation of God Almighty. So, for instance, the fool who writes the above passage knows absolutely nothing about, say, Jesus talking to the Samaritan woman and smashing four social barriers--religious, ethnic, political and gender--all at once. He knows nothing at all about Jesus treating Mary of Bethany as a disciple of equal dignity with all his other disciples (which is what "sitting at his feet" signifies). He knows nothing of Mary Magdalene, Apostle to the Apostles. He knows nothing of Paul, who said that in Christ Jesus, there is neither male nor female and who worked side by side with many women in the spread of the gospel. Nor does he seem to have grasped the significance of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was emphatically not viewed by the early Church as little better than a talking cow.
Does this mean there was no sexism in the Church. Of course not. But it does mean that the New Testament really did bring something new into a world in which, due to the Fall, women were universally oppressed. It was the Christian tradition that gave birth to the idea that the love of woman was ennobling. It was the Christian tradition that universalized the idea that man and woman are of equal dignity. Indeed, the whole concept of equality is *nothing but* a mystical idea that comes to us from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Empirical science knows nothing of human equality. The notion that we can get rid of the Christian tradition and retain a faith in human equality is one of the great lies the devil is busy telling the world today.
Jounalists: Our Moral and Intellectual Superiors
A reader writes:
My reader fails to appreciate the sport of encyclical reading. The goal is not to find out what the encyclical says or (Heaven forfend!) learn from it. The goal is to file a story as quickly as possible which stands the best chance of a) affirming your tribe in whatever it already thinks and b) stands the best chance of selling the most beer and shampoo for your news organization.
I don't know, this just strikes me as odd. This site at CNN is headlined, "Pope Challenges Capitalism Ahead of G-8". The thing is that I have the encyclical on a Word Doc and when I do a word search of the entire thing, "Capitalism" never comes up.
My reader fails to appreciate the sport of encyclical reading. The goal is not to find out what the encyclical says or (Heaven forfend!) learn from it. The goal is to file a story as quickly as possible which stands the best chance of a) affirming your tribe in whatever it already thinks and b) stands the best chance of selling the most beer and shampoo for your news organization.
The Foundation for the Sacred Arts writes:
I was recently introduced to your blog "Catholic and Enjoying it!" and thought you might be interested in the ideals and activities promoted by The Foundation for Sacred Arts.
The Foundation for Sacred Arts is a Catholic non-profit organization that has been founded to stimulate a renewed vibrancy in the patronage and production of Christian sacred arts (art, architecture, music); and to advance the pursuit of excellence in conformity with truth, goodness, and beauty in these arts; for the glory of God, the life of His Church, and the transformation of culture.
To this end, we coordinate educational opportunities (lectures, conferences) that explore issues related to contemporary sacred arts, and events (exhibitions, concerts) that showcase the most accomplished examples of sacred arts today. In addition, we seek to build up online registries of contemporary artists, architects and composers as a resource for those interested in commissioning works.
You can visit our website for more information: www.thesacredarts.org, and please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding our work.
Check thou it out!
Weigel's Attempt at Source Criticism Continues to Get Well-Earned Derision
George Weigel's preposterous attempt at subjecting the new encyclical to JEPD exegesis continues to garner all the plaudits it deserves from people who are not dedicated to hacking away at it until it says what NRO wants it to say. From early notices which hail his deeply respectful assessment of the encyclical as "duck-billed platypus" as "arrogant", to later assessments like "Shorter George Weigel: The only parts of the Pope’s new encyclical that really matter are the ones that line up neatly with the Republican Party’s political agenda; all the rest is incomprehensible and quite possibly stupid" the kudos are coming in fast and thick.
For a serious, not to say methodical (as in in "not one stone left standing on another") takedown of Weigel's attempt at subjecting the encyclical to Jesus Seminar methodologies of color-coding the text according to R and JP sources, I have not read anything better than this.
And finally, a reader notes something I've often noticed too:
It's like Calvinists. How is it that every single Calvinist I've ever met just happens to be one of the winners of the Cosmic Lottery that made him elect? I've never met a Calvinist who is absolutely certain of his damnation by the sovereign will of Almighty God.
Anyway, I still have no comment on the encyclical itself for the simple reason I've had no time to read it. Maybe this weekend.
For a serious, not to say methodical (as in in "not one stone left standing on another") takedown of Weigel's attempt at subjecting the encyclical to Jesus Seminar methodologies of color-coding the text according to R and JP sources, I have not read anything better than this.
And finally, a reader notes something I've often noticed too:
Just once in my life I hope to read something like this: "Through careful dispassionate objective analysis, I have divided this great authoritative text into the Genuine Authentic Authoritative Original parts and the Spurious Late Additions of Ignorant Editors. And doggone it, it turns out all the genuine stuff is in irreconcilable conflict with my opinions, while I find I totally agree with all the Spurious Additions. There must be something wrong with me!"
It's like Calvinists. How is it that every single Calvinist I've ever met just happens to be one of the winners of the Cosmic Lottery that made him elect? I've never met a Calvinist who is absolutely certain of his damnation by the sovereign will of Almighty God.
Anyway, I still have no comment on the encyclical itself for the simple reason I've had no time to read it. Maybe this weekend.
Sundry Palin Reverb
I take it from the feedback on the previous post that most people got my point, so I'm happy. However, a few people had various questions/comments that I thought worth noting. One person asked:
Palin's children were a huge issue in the campaign, not because she "used them as props", but because the existence of Trig Palin was a grave threat to the worldview of the leadership of the Democratic party and its most entrenched supporters. The visceral and insane hatred of that baby and of his siblings was breathtaking. Others may have forgotten, but I haven't, the cries of "ewww" and "unsanitary!" when his sister in an unscripted moment at the convention, slicked down his hair. The pure hatred for her was palpable. No matter what Palin had chosen to do, her kids were going to be targets because of the mindless and unreasoning hatred her children evoked amongst the "humans are a disease" crowd that makes up the netroots and their allies. If she'd left them in AK, she'd be arraigned as abandoning her family and grasping after power. If she took them with her, they were "props". Any action would be attacked, because the real issue was the mere existence of her children--and *especially* of a disabled child in the midst of the eugenic dreams of the Left.
Every politician has to figure out a way to incorporate their family into their very public life. Obama getting the girls a dog was a political act because everything a pol does is politicized by the fact that he does it. If a president can't dislike broccoli without it making headlines, it's unlikely his family will escape scrutiny either. But in Palin's case, the scrutiny was combined with visceral hatred because of Trig. That's why there are still nutty Trig Truthers out there, months after she *lost* the election, still attempting obstetrics by internet to prove that there was some grand conspiracy surrounding his birth.
Another reader says she's not resigning because of her family:
Okay. The point is: she resigned. And some people are treating it as though it was a brilliant first step to the White House. I think that's delusional. I also think that every problem facing her now would only be amplified tenfold if she'd won--meaning she'd still be resigning now, which is not a sign that she is competent for the Veep or Prez office.
My reader continues:
Well, er, actually I think I *do* get how horribly difficult it would be for any human being, but especially for a human being who 1) was with her infant son and other children Public Enemy No. 1 for a pro-choice media and cultural elite and 2) showed herself in a number of ways to not yet be prepared for that or for the job. That's not just me. That's Jonah Goldberg, no enemy of Palin.
My reader concludes:
I'm not quite sure what to make of this. I'm not looking for a savior for the GOP. I figure that, in the course of time, experience will educate and people will begin to get a clue. When they do, somebody will emerge to articulate reality and lead the party out of its self-imposed sojourn in the wilderness. I just don't think Palin is going to be that person and neither does my reader. So I don't see how I'm stepping on anybody's hope unless it's a false hope--which needs to be stepped on so that real hope, founded on prudence, can emerge.
Another reader says:
Not one of which would go away if she'd been elected Veep. Instead, all the accusations would follow her to DC and multiply. If she couldn't take it in AK, why would she be able to do so in DC?
Another reader says:
You and me both dude. Biden's kid gloves treatment by the Obama-worshippers in the media is ridiculous.
According to what I've read on liberal sites, serious commentators are attacking what they perceive to be Palin exploiting her children as political props. I don't know whether I agree with that view, so don't attack me--I'm merely reporting that view and inviting you to respond.
Palin's children were a huge issue in the campaign, not because she "used them as props", but because the existence of Trig Palin was a grave threat to the worldview of the leadership of the Democratic party and its most entrenched supporters. The visceral and insane hatred of that baby and of his siblings was breathtaking. Others may have forgotten, but I haven't, the cries of "ewww" and "unsanitary!" when his sister in an unscripted moment at the convention, slicked down his hair. The pure hatred for her was palpable. No matter what Palin had chosen to do, her kids were going to be targets because of the mindless and unreasoning hatred her children evoked amongst the "humans are a disease" crowd that makes up the netroots and their allies. If she'd left them in AK, she'd be arraigned as abandoning her family and grasping after power. If she took them with her, they were "props". Any action would be attacked, because the real issue was the mere existence of her children--and *especially* of a disabled child in the midst of the eugenic dreams of the Left.
Every politician has to figure out a way to incorporate their family into their very public life. Obama getting the girls a dog was a political act because everything a pol does is politicized by the fact that he does it. If a president can't dislike broccoli without it making headlines, it's unlikely his family will escape scrutiny either. But in Palin's case, the scrutiny was combined with visceral hatred because of Trig. That's why there are still nutty Trig Truthers out there, months after she *lost* the election, still attempting obstetrics by internet to prove that there was some grand conspiracy surrounding his birth.
Another reader says she's not resigning because of her family:
She is performing a repeat of her resignation from the oil and gas commission which brought about (in ways too numerous to list) massive positive change in Alaska government.
Okay. The point is: she resigned. And some people are treating it as though it was a brilliant first step to the White House. I think that's delusional. I also think that every problem facing her now would only be amplified tenfold if she'd won--meaning she'd still be resigning now, which is not a sign that she is competent for the Veep or Prez office.
My reader continues:
I would agree that she would be happy to serve as President and who could blame the woman for maybe dreaming about it a bit with all the indicators out there suggesting the possibility? But you don't really get how horribly difficult that would be for any human being. It is practically impossible because of the nature of the GOP right now and the lack of organization among the many working adults who have, over the years, simply dropped out of politics.
Well, er, actually I think I *do* get how horribly difficult it would be for any human being, but especially for a human being who 1) was with her infant son and other children Public Enemy No. 1 for a pro-choice media and cultural elite and 2) showed herself in a number of ways to not yet be prepared for that or for the job. That's not just me. That's Jonah Goldberg, no enemy of Palin.
My reader concludes:
You may be looking for a savior of the GOP. I am not. I am through with the GOP having declared my independence along with Sarah Palin, and I can almost guarantee you that unless the Tea Party folks and the Libertarians who are willing to compromise on social issues will bite the bullet and be active in the GOP or, alternatively, start a viable third party, the liberals will continue to run (and ruin) this country until we're all on Uncle Sam's Plantation.
I know you mean well, but please, stop stepping on people's hope.
I'm not quite sure what to make of this. I'm not looking for a savior for the GOP. I figure that, in the course of time, experience will educate and people will begin to get a clue. When they do, somebody will emerge to articulate reality and lead the party out of its self-imposed sojourn in the wilderness. I just don't think Palin is going to be that person and neither does my reader. So I don't see how I'm stepping on anybody's hope unless it's a false hope--which needs to be stepped on so that real hope, founded on prudence, can emerge.
Another reader says:
Mark, I'd agree with you if she was just resigning because of the criticism. However, she seems to be resigning because of the financial costs of the criticism
Not one of which would go away if she'd been elected Veep. Instead, all the accusations would follow her to DC and multiply. If she couldn't take it in AK, why would she be able to do so in DC?
Another reader says:
Yeah, but I wish Joseph Biden, who *was* elected VP and who makes Palin look like Einstein, got as much abuse (you know, along these lines:
You and me both dude. Biden's kid gloves treatment by the Obama-worshippers in the media is ridiculous.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Palin Fans Busting Blood Vessels
Various folk in my comboxes are mad at me because I don't think Sarah Palin is the Savior of the GOP. One guy (whose post full of vituperation and name-calling was sadly deleted) freaked out in a particularly memorable way and, before bravely signing off anonymously as "Sick of Shea's BS" wrote: "I can't read this blog. It's worse than the pro-abort websites. Dishonest scum like Shea make me ashamed to be Catholic." All because I posted a Tom Tomorrow cartoon spoofing the kerfuffle over Palin. Some people really need to cut their caffeine intake.
Ahem: A clue to the inner workings of the mind of Shea:
When I title something "Obligatory X Post" that is a clue that I don't have a burning passionate interest in it. "Obligatory": as in "having to eat your liver and lima beans. "Obligatory": as in "You are obliged to do your stupid math homework before you can go out and play." "Obligatory": as in "an onerous, tedious duty that I must perform. "Obligatory": as in "I'm neither burning with hate nor with love for the subject. But I know that somebody is demanding my view on the matter, so I'm giving it (such as it is)."
When I go even further to communicate my general disinterest by letting a cartoon (sort of) stand in for a tediously typed out thought, that should be your next clue that, so far from being filled with some newfound, intense hatred of Sarah Palin (in sharp distinction to everything I've written about her before in the rare moments where I've written about her at all), I'm just giving a quick answer to people who are demanding I have some in-depth take on the whole thing.
My stance is basically the same as it's been. She seems likeable, but likeability does not mean she's competent to be President of the US. I greatly admire her championing her son Trig and her championing disable kids against the fashionable "just kill 'em" attitude of Blue state elitists. The press and the liberal elite hates her guts with an incandescent passion, precisely because Trig threatens their most cherished dogmas. I salute and celebrate her openness to life and her refusal to let such freakish enemies of nature attack her children or any people struggling with disabilities.
But guess what? That doesn't make her competent to be President. And if she had been elected Veep she would have been subjected to just as much abuse, indeed more. If McCain's health had failed (a very good chance of this), she could be President right now, and subject, if anything to even more abuse and scrutiny from the media.
And, if McCain's health had failed, she'd still be quitting right now if her reason for quitting was elevation of her family's needs above the demands of public office.
So: McCain nominated somebody who was not, in fact, capable of doing the job she was trying to get elected to do. Sorry, but that's the facts. She's not a political genius for quitting. She's somebody who cannot take the heat it requires to do the job of Veep, much less Prez. It's not "hatred" to say that. Nor is it agreeing with the anti-life monsters who genuinely hate the fact of Trig Palin's existence. It's a sober observation of reality. I wish her well on whatever she decides to do. I hope she continues to advocate for the rights of children, both unborn and disabled. I just don't think she's ready to be Prez and I think her resignation bears that out.
I also think that Palin fans, by their not-infrequently demented reactions to *any* questioning or criticism of her are simply forcing the GOP deeper into the Bubble of Unreality that has increasingly come to afflict it as the Bush/Cheney machine drove it into the ground. Prudence, the ability to see what is, is the first virtue. When the GOP again gains the capacity to look at what is so and stop trying to make reality conform to delusional wishes, it will take the first step on the road to recovery.
And not a minute too soon either.
Ahem: A clue to the inner workings of the mind of Shea:
When I title something "Obligatory X Post" that is a clue that I don't have a burning passionate interest in it. "Obligatory": as in "having to eat your liver and lima beans. "Obligatory": as in "You are obliged to do your stupid math homework before you can go out and play." "Obligatory": as in "an onerous, tedious duty that I must perform. "Obligatory": as in "I'm neither burning with hate nor with love for the subject. But I know that somebody is demanding my view on the matter, so I'm giving it (such as it is)."
When I go even further to communicate my general disinterest by letting a cartoon (sort of) stand in for a tediously typed out thought, that should be your next clue that, so far from being filled with some newfound, intense hatred of Sarah Palin (in sharp distinction to everything I've written about her before in the rare moments where I've written about her at all), I'm just giving a quick answer to people who are demanding I have some in-depth take on the whole thing.
My stance is basically the same as it's been. She seems likeable, but likeability does not mean she's competent to be President of the US. I greatly admire her championing her son Trig and her championing disable kids against the fashionable "just kill 'em" attitude of Blue state elitists. The press and the liberal elite hates her guts with an incandescent passion, precisely because Trig threatens their most cherished dogmas. I salute and celebrate her openness to life and her refusal to let such freakish enemies of nature attack her children or any people struggling with disabilities.
But guess what? That doesn't make her competent to be President. And if she had been elected Veep she would have been subjected to just as much abuse, indeed more. If McCain's health had failed (a very good chance of this), she could be President right now, and subject, if anything to even more abuse and scrutiny from the media.
And, if McCain's health had failed, she'd still be quitting right now if her reason for quitting was elevation of her family's needs above the demands of public office.
So: McCain nominated somebody who was not, in fact, capable of doing the job she was trying to get elected to do. Sorry, but that's the facts. She's not a political genius for quitting. She's somebody who cannot take the heat it requires to do the job of Veep, much less Prez. It's not "hatred" to say that. Nor is it agreeing with the anti-life monsters who genuinely hate the fact of Trig Palin's existence. It's a sober observation of reality. I wish her well on whatever she decides to do. I hope she continues to advocate for the rights of children, both unborn and disabled. I just don't think she's ready to be Prez and I think her resignation bears that out.
I also think that Palin fans, by their not-infrequently demented reactions to *any* questioning or criticism of her are simply forcing the GOP deeper into the Bubble of Unreality that has increasingly come to afflict it as the Bush/Cheney machine drove it into the ground. Prudence, the ability to see what is, is the first virtue. When the GOP again gains the capacity to look at what is so and stop trying to make reality conform to delusional wishes, it will take the first step on the road to recovery.
And not a minute too soon either.
Pretty funny
The Good Pope and the Bad Advisors - A Fable by George Weigel
I find Weigel's attempt to parse the R sources from the J&P sources and tells us which bits of the encyclical *really* give us the Pope's thought to be as credible as the work of the Jesus Seminar in color-coding the gospels.
Seldom has there been such a ham-fisted pass at trimming Church teaching to fit an ideological box.
I find Weigel's attempt to parse the R sources from the J&P sources and tells us which bits of the encyclical *really* give us the Pope's thought to be as credible as the work of the Jesus Seminar in color-coding the gospels.
Seldom has there been such a ham-fisted pass at trimming Church teaching to fit an ideological box.
Evangelical Catholicism is Back on the Air
Two of the best bloggers at Vox Nova (Policratus and Katerina) have re-booted the Evangelical Catholicism blog, which is cause for rejoicing. They seem to be able to stay on track, actually talking about Catholic social teaching, without erupting in bizarre paeans to Obama's greatness, or absurd tu quoques, or obscene attempts to justify abortion, or disgusting and nutty tribalistic excuses for torture, or dumb tirades about Evil Calvinist America as the all-explaining paradigm for all the wickedness in the world, or eyeroll-inducing eulogies to Michael Jackson, Cold War Winner.
The cast they've brought with them seem to be the most sensible members of the Vox Nova crew, both right and left-leaning. Discussion is already underway as consideration is given to the Pope's new encyclical, with a view to actually trying to understand it as distinct from either trying to cram it into the template of a a Hurray For Democratic Capitalism Rah Rah with a couple of empty words intended to "mollify social justice types" or else dismiss it as being nearly a disastrous capitulation to Justice and Peace types.
Me: I'll wait till I've read and re-read it before doing the autopsy on how great a promoter of the American Way/how hopelessly naive and foolish Benedict is. I have this notion that when the Church offends me, that's probably where I need to pay closest attention. Similarly, I strongly suspect that when the Church seems to me to confirm *exactly* what I think, despite the fact that there are those easy-to-ignore passages that are just there to "mollify" fools I easily dismiss, it's possible that I'm not really reading Her to find out what she is saying, but to confirm my own prejudices.
Anyway, I'm happy to see Evangelical Catholicism is up and running.
The cast they've brought with them seem to be the most sensible members of the Vox Nova crew, both right and left-leaning. Discussion is already underway as consideration is given to the Pope's new encyclical, with a view to actually trying to understand it as distinct from either trying to cram it into the template of a a Hurray For Democratic Capitalism Rah Rah with a couple of empty words intended to "mollify social justice types" or else dismiss it as being nearly a disastrous capitulation to Justice and Peace types.
Me: I'll wait till I've read and re-read it before doing the autopsy on how great a promoter of the American Way/how hopelessly naive and foolish Benedict is. I have this notion that when the Church offends me, that's probably where I need to pay closest attention. Similarly, I strongly suspect that when the Church seems to me to confirm *exactly* what I think, despite the fact that there are those easy-to-ignore passages that are just there to "mollify" fools I easily dismiss, it's possible that I'm not really reading Her to find out what she is saying, but to confirm my own prejudices.
Anyway, I'm happy to see Evangelical Catholicism is up and running.
Obligatory Palin Posting
This kinda sums things up for me:
Some folks are still trying to interpret the latest weirdness from the Palin camp as political genius. Good luck with that.
And so the self-immolation of the GOP continues.
Some folks are still trying to interpret the latest weirdness from the Palin camp as political genius. Good luck with that.
And so the self-immolation of the GOP continues.
It's too late for my East Coast readers...
but, for the rest of you who are not on military time, today you will be able to experience the awesomeness of it being
12:34:56 on 07/08/09.
Set your watches!
12:34:56 on 07/08/09.
Set your watches!
The Pope's New Encyclical is Here!
Caritas in Veritate. Lookin' forward to reading it! The title recalls both Deus Caritas Est and Veritatis Splendor. I love Benedict's lucid prose style. Clean as a whistle and clear as a bell. Only a journalist will be able to misunderstand it.
Charles, Prince of Darkness
Dazzling the world with his blinding charisma, Prince Charles is, according to some, just about to unleash the reign of Antichrist on an unsuspecting world.
Count me among the extremely unsuspecting.
Count me among the extremely unsuspecting.
Jeremy Stanbury Was In The Surprise
That's the Chesterton play we did for EWTN a couple of years ago. Click here and scroll down to find out a bit about it. He's a good guy! And now he's got a new project:
Jeremy Stanbary Stars in One-Man Drama about Pope John Paul II
Minneapolis, Minn., July 2 – Pope Benedict XVI opened the Year for Priests in St. Peter’s Square on Friday, June 19. He called for the special year to coincide with the 150th anniversary of the death of St. John Vianney, who was famed for his priestly ministry. The year hopes to celebrate the life, mission and vocation of priests, the Church’s spiritual fathers.
Jeremy Stanbary has found a unique way to celebrate the Year for Priests. Stanbary, founder and executive director of the Minneapolis-based Epiphany Studio Productions, is performing his one-man play called Lolek. The drama is a stirring portrayal of Karol Wojtyla, the man who later became Pope John Paul II. Known as “Lolek” to his closest friends, Wojtyla was ordained to the priesthood on November 1, 1946 and elected Pope on October 16, 1978.
Stanbary says Lolek is one of the most popular plays in his repertoire. “Lolek looks at the young adulthood of Pope John Paul II, his discernment and calling to the priesthood,” said Stanbary. “The play recounts his heroic vocational journey amidst great adversity and ends with a moving depiction of his ordination.”
Set in occupied Poland, Lolek is a riveting drama that provides insight into the experiences and influences that formed one of the most intriguing and beloved figures of all time.
Like the late pope an actor and playwright himself, Stanbary has combined his love of acting with his passion for working with youth and his love of the Catholic Faith. He hopes his performances will entertain, educate and inspire audiences. Stanbary has performed at World Youth Day in Cologne, Germany and Sydney, Australia.
Stanbary will be performing Lolek in Chicago from October 1-5. In November, Lolek is being performed for at the Pfister Hotel in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and in Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin for the Diocese of La Crosse Youth Conference. For more information about these and other performances by Stanbary, please visit www.EpiphanyStudios.com.
To schedule an interview with Stanbary, please contact Christine Schicker with The Maximus Group at 404-610-8871.
If your church, school or organization would like to book Stanbary for a performance of Lolek, please contact Tina Remmert with The Maximus Group at 386-763-9127.
Freakish Enemies of the Natural
A reader writes:
This reminds me of the following exchange in email that passed through my mailbox. One reader writes:
And another replies:
I pretty much agree with everything in this reply. One of the marks of the demonic is the hatred, not only of God, but of nature. The itch to force a six year old kid into applauding some dyked-out Barbie, to "see girls raised as boys, apes treated as people, people bred like dogs, children having sex, and grown-ups acting like infants"--to always assert will against nature seems to be one of the marks of Hell.
Googling on the stuff you posted, I came across this:He goes on, on the trend in general. Cites this:Interestingly, a close friend gave her six-year-old niece a Barbie to add to her extensive collection. This Barbie was different, many hours were spent 'queering' Barbie up; she represented a different performance of gender that was not easily read as heterosexual. Barbie's hair was cut short, she had several tattoos, a nose and nipple ring, black leather clothes, and so on. Despite all the effort put into this performance, this 'Queer Barbie' lasted less than a week--she was found defrocked and mutilated (missing limbs), hidden at the bottom of the cupboard; 'Queer Barbie' was well and truly reprimanded for her gender 'slippage' and was ostracised from her more respectable hetero-feminised cousins.
_Despite_. Despite being made a hideous monster, the Barbie did not meet a
girl's approval.
This reminds me of the following exchange in email that passed through my mailbox. One reader writes:
As a disabled individual, folks like Mike Treder scare the crap out of me. If I wasn't committed to the principles of proportionate retribution and preemptive strikes, as well as just degrees of punishment, I would openly advocate capping eugenicists the instant they revealed themselves, no questions asked, to protect the interests of everyone else.
I mean come on! Never again? Except every few decades.
Unfreakin' believable.
Maybe we should, as a free nation, consider introducing a law that imposes capital punishment on anyone in a position of influence--be it academic, political, medical, entertainment, etc...--who more than once expresses eugenicist views from a public platform or in a public forum?--I mean, views that consider some people less human than others or seek to restrict the definition of personhood to include certain humans and exclude others.
At this point in history, it would arguably be in the best interest of the common good of society to do so, which so often faces the threat of imminent genocide.
Penny for your thoughts?
And another replies:
Do not be so alarmed. This is typical for atheists, and, I must say, typical for lawyers as well. Children, madmen, or persons mentally incapacitated are not afforded the full rights of emancipated adults, but are made the wards of some other adult.
Moderns have the itch to undo the various distinctions Creation put in place. Where Christians, and other sane people, make a distinction between male and female, adults and children, man and beast, or even life and death, the so-called Modern thinkers yearn to find examples to cast doubt on these distinctions. They want to see girls raised as boys, apes treated as people, people bred like dogs, children having sex, and grown-ups acting like infants, and so on. Progress, for them, consists of the descent into primordial chaos, and the triumph of the will over all obstacles, manmade and natural, logical and real.
Behind all this is guilt--I do not know for sure, but such is my strong suspicion. Tens of thousands and millions of unborn babies have been slaughtered in the name of Progress, and this holocaust has been glorified as an act of the will to overcome what Progressive regard as the obstacle standing athwart their cherished desire for copulation without consequences, outcome, or offspring.
The solution of killing the child has a satanic simplicity to it, since they can also cloak the murder in the rhetoric of personal freedom, of granting rights to oppressed femininity, and Nietzschean "empowerment." Killing a baby is their way of defying reality, of granting themselves power over Mother Nature.
If, however, they admit that there are real distinctions between things, that life is not death, that a fetus is not a non-living thing, that a child is not a clump of cells-- in other words, if they admit that reality is real, then the whole smug and necromantic dream of pretending that abusing your power over words and names grants you power over nature, the whole dream, I say, is shattered at the root.
Many men are bored by the philosopher's care he takes with defining his terms at the beginning, but such dry treks through arid deserts lead to a promised land of real truth on the far side. The philosophers who do not define their terms -- I am thinking particularly of nihilists, existentialists, and other moderns -- are either charlatans themselves, or men maintaining an attractive nuisance, as if inviting a charlatan to come use their works to do his work of malice.
Mr. Treder is an example of an anti-philosopher, that is, someone trying to define his terms by non-essentials, which allows him enough ambiguity to call Koko the monkey a person, and to deny my autistic and retarded son Roland that name. I await the day when the Martians of HG Wells land in his backyard, and, upon seeing his intellect is not as powerful as theirs, use him as work animal, or as a food stock, on the grounds that he does not fit their definition of a person. Myself, I would prefer a visit from the Martians of C.S. Lewis, who do not use intellect to determine if a spirit is blessed, or if life is sacrosanct.
I pretty much agree with everything in this reply. One of the marks of the demonic is the hatred, not only of God, but of nature. The itch to force a six year old kid into applauding some dyked-out Barbie, to "see girls raised as boys, apes treated as people, people bred like dogs, children having sex, and grown-ups acting like infants"--to always assert will against nature seems to be one of the marks of Hell.
Sanford: Is he *still* around?
"It's now to the point that I think there's strong consensus that he's unable to govern -- not only within himself -- but who in this state would be willing to be governed by a man acting like this?"
- Cindy Mosteller, who is spearheading Stand with Jenny, an evangelical movement calling for Governor Mark Sanford's resignation as governor.
Yep. Time for this guy to go.
On *Father's* Day.
Another triumph for the Party of Family Values. Such betrayal of the honest folk who have trusted these clowns.
The World's First Celebrity Cardboard Cutout
brought to you by the funniest saint in the rolls, Philip Neri (at least till they canonize Chesterton).
The Horror!
Courtesy of Sci-Fi Catholic, which also has a terrific announcement: Contributor Deej is going to seminary, a decision he explains in a very funny post here.
I would totally want Deej as my priest (assuming he wises up and joins the Dominicans).
Just about the creepiest thing I've seen this year
A friend of mine with a perverse sense of humor writes:
Don't you want to be a fly on the wall for one of these sessions? Or maybe just an exorcist? Some people seem especially eager to bear out the Chestertonian aphorism about how those who will not believe in God will believe in anything.
As your friend, I wanted to let you know of someone who might be able to help you.
Please don't thank me -- it's just what I do.
Don't you want to be a fly on the wall for one of these sessions? Or maybe just an exorcist? Some people seem especially eager to bear out the Chestertonian aphorism about how those who will not believe in God will believe in anything.
166 Followers!
My growing legion of lickspittle toadies, groveling sycophants, obsequious minions, and shuffling, glassy-eyed gofers and zombie continues to grow, while the pathetic Fr. Philip can only stamp his tiny feet in impotent rage at my mocking laughter.
Today, in celebration of the Dark Tower's victory over Fr. Philip (despite his nefarious attempt to set fire to Verizon) I wish to offer the world this, my glorious vision of peace:
Hey! You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette! But it will be really great in the end. You'll see (if you are alive to see it).
That is all.
Today, in celebration of the Dark Tower's victory over Fr. Philip (despite his nefarious attempt to set fire to Verizon) I wish to offer the world this, my glorious vision of peace:
Hey! You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette! But it will be really great in the end. You'll see (if you are alive to see it).
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
